Talk:James Bond/@comment-108.234.116.190-20140914234943
Many have undertaken the daunting task of trying to answer the question, “Is there continuity in the James Bond films? Are they all linked? Is there only one James Bond or many?” I’ve searched throughout the internet and read many theories from “Yes” showing proofs of connection between a few films but no solid overall explanation for incongruities amongst others and “No’s” with plausible explanations of “James Bond code name” to the not so plausible “parallel universes” and the appalling “time lord theory”. BTW the Batman analogy is completely defunct in my opinion. In each web site I’ve explored there has been multiple versions of each of the above theories but I’ve yet to discover in surfing the web a major factor which supports the “Only one James Bond” belief and explains the incongruities. I’ve thought long and hard about this issue and I’ve come to the conclusion that yes there is only one James Bond and the films are linked, some more than others and here are a few factors that have been left out: The first major insight that I’ll bring up that I haven’t yet seen is that of perspective. Almost everyone argues, “How can James Bond be the same character when there’s Q and M and Moneypenny and Felix Leiter etc etc?”, throughout the films. Rather though I’ve discovered lets change the perspective and look at it in a different way and say instead of Bond being a different person maybe Felix is a code name, M is a code name, Q is a code name, Moneypenny a code name and where there seems to be incongruities such as the Felix contradiction in Casino Royale and Dr. No, where Bond seems to meet Felix for the first time twice, that it’s because Felix is a British code name for an American CIA operative working with Bond and James is still the same person and Felix isn’t. It could also be argued that they do know one another but they just have to introduce one another in this manner because its professional and they aren’t supposed to know one another. It would be very detrimental for a bad guy to see them greet one another at first meeting in an area such as Jamaica as if they have known one another for ten years! In regards to Leiter, I believe this second issue is the most plausible. Even with Puss Fellow and Quarrel it would be the correct move to respond as if they never knew one another. Here’s more evidence: they do recognize each other’s weapons so there’s a hint that they do know one another but they are keeping it under wraps so to speak. These are professional spies and the directors whether they knew it or not did a spot on job. With that said it’s very plausible to believe not all M’s are the same even the SF Judi Dench and the CR/QOS Judi Dench. Clearly The Q from SF is not the same as all the previous films, so why not Moneypenny too as painful as this may seem? The second factor I’d like to bring up which eliminates the incongruities and contradictions to a single James Bond is called “The God Factor”. What I mean by this is that the writers, directors, producers etc can and do in their sovereignty as such, interject themselves into the film. Not only their personal selves but their own thoughts and humor and this is why there seems to be a split in the Bond characters but really it has nothing to do with the oneness of a Bond character but rather an injection of author intent, to simply let you know there’s someone behind the Bond character manipulating the world. Basically saying, “Hi, I’m here! There’s someone bigger than Bond.” The first and most explicit example of “The God Factor” is in OHMSS when Lazenby says “This never happened to the other fellow.” This isn’t a statement on 007 himself (btw 007 is the position not James Bond. JB is the name of the agent in the position with the codename 007) but rather on the actor being more inept than Connery, it’s a comic relief in regards to many fans who were probably upset over Connery leaving the part. (How else would one explain the difference in actors with OHMSS and the opening scene of FYEO then where Bond’s wife in both is Teresa Bond? Change of actor does not necessarily mean change of character.) It’s the producers giving a little leeway in their power to make the movies connect with the real world. OHMSS has other God Factor parts such as in the opening titles it shows YOLT scenes which technically OHMSS comes before YOLT due to recognition of Bond by Blofeld but then why would they put that in there? Because as gods of their creation the producers are saying this is the same Bond even though it is a different actor. Completely out of script out of film out of novel it’s simply a blatant statement unrelated to the film alone but to blending the film with reality. Other God Factors include cameos by producers and director’s such as Michael Wilson’s cameo in MR and TND and Terence Young’s cameo in TB. This is just like Peter Jackson’s cameo in the LOTR films. One of the most pivotal God Factor’s for Bond congruity is Judi Dench’s statement in CR about missing the Cold War but this also is a tongue in cheek joke interjected by the producers et al. It’s a comedic statement on “oh ha ha look this is actually the first Bond but it appears way late after the cold war”. When, in fact, the original Casino Royale book was written during the cold war. Once again, it’s comedic injection pointing to the reality of what’s going on outside the film but at the same time relating to the film. So yes, chronologically, CR is the first film but made during a far later time after the novel’s creation. So then, what determines whether something is a God Factor or not, so as not to make it a red herring answer for every contradiction. Simply put, for the most part, if it doesn’t make sense and is out of place, sort of random to the current film at hand and is usually accompanied by comedy of some form then it’s probably a God Factor. M’s statement in CR doesn’t make sense because (with not introducing knowledge from the books) CR is where Bond gets his 00, therefore this is the first Bond. All other Bond films he is a 00. Also, there are a number of previous Bond’s dealing with Cold War issues. It’s just a fact that must be accepted even if it feels uncomfortable to do so. Her comment is comedic in presentation alone and refers to a universe not yet experienced at the time. In my opinion, if you are to go with a congruent chronological Bond you have to throw out a lot of factors such as “all Connery’s or all Moore’s must go together.” Also, there are many Bond movies not made yet such as where did Blofeld come from? Is he part of Quantum? Lots of unknowns which may even cause me to put DAF before OHMSS but that’s just speculation at this point. All in all I find it very plausible for a one James Bond universe amongst the films with many films to come. I am currently working on a chronology to watch in order. I’ll hopefully post below when I’m finished.